Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology
2008, 24(1), 108-122

First year students’ experiences with technology:

Are they really digital natives?
Gregor E. Kennedy, Terry S. Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray
The University of Melbourne

Kerri-Lee Krause
Griffith University

This paper reports on a study conducted in 2006 with more than 2,000 incoming first-
year Australian university students. Students were asked about their access to, use of
and preferences for an array of established and emerging technologies and technology
based tools. The results show that many first year students are highly tech-savvy.
However, when one moves beyond entrenched technologies and tools (e.g. computers,
mobile phones, email), the patterns of access and use of a range of other technologies
show considerable variation. The findings are discussed in light of Prensky’s (2001a)
notions of the ‘Digital Natives’ and the implications for using technology to support
teaching and learning in higher education.

Introduction
In 2001 Marc Prensky published companion papers on a new generation of students:
the ‘Digital Natives’. The basic thrust of Prensky’s argument was that this new group
of students coming into universities was fundamentally different from any that
educators had seen before. Digital Natives had “spent their entire lives surrounded by
and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and
all the other toys and tools of the digital age” (Prensky, 2001a, p. 1). Prensky
maintained that the digital culture and environment in which the Natives had grown
up had changed the way they think: “It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous
environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think
and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” (p. 1).
Furthermore, in what can only be regarded as a bold claim, Prensky suggested that “It
is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different
from ours – as a result of how they grew up.” (p. 1). This paper takes the first of these
claims as its starting point. While it does not address claims about fundamental
differences in information processing or neuroplasticity, it does question the cultural
and environmental assumptions underpinning the construct of the Digital Natives.

Since Prensky (2001a, 2001b) coined the term, a considerable amount of discussion in
education circles has centred on the Digital Natives (also referred to as the ‘Net
Generation’, the ‘Y Generation’ and ‘Millennials’). The argument has changed little
from that originally posed by Prensky: the digital culture in which the Digital Natives
have grown up has influenced their preferences and skills in a number of key areas
related to education (see Oblinger, 2003, 2006; Gros, 2003; Gibbons, 2007). Prensky’s
stance has also remained unaltered over this period; he states in a recent article “… our
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 109

students are clamouring for these [new] technologies to be used as part of their
education, in part because they are things that the students have already mastered and
use in their daily lives, and in part because they realise just how useful they can be.”
(Prensky, 2007; p. 41). Digital Natives are said to prefer receiving information quickly;
be adept at processing information rapidly; prefer multi-tasking and non-linear access
to information; have a low tolerance for lectures; prefer active rather than passive
learning, and rely heavily on communications technologies to access information and
to carry out social and professional interactions (Prensky 2001a, 2001b; Oblinger, 2003;
Gros, 2003; Frand, 2000).

Prensky (2001a) not only pointed to the supposed natural technological affinity and
literacy of the Digital Natives, he also expressed concern at an apparent lack of
technological literacy among educators. He labelled lecturers in higher education
‘Digital Immigrants’; foreigners in the digital lands of the Net Generation, and
regarded the disparity between the Natives and the Immigrants as the “the biggest
single problem facing education today” (p. 2). The preferences and skills that
characterise the Digital Natives were said to be incompatible with the current teaching
practices of the Immigrants. Prensky and other commentators (Oblinger, 2003; Frand,
2000) suggest that because of this disparity educators need to adjust their pedagogical
models to suit the new kind of learner they are encountering in this new generation of
students. Not surprisingly, this argument has gained widespread attention in higher
education circles (e.g. Doherty, 2005; Rodley, 2005).

However, the premises underpinning these arguments warrant closer examination

before university educators set about overhauling established curricula and teaching
and learning practices. These arguments are predicated on a general assumption that
students coming into universities have had a comparatively universal and uniform
digital upbringing. It is assumed that the technological experiences of students are
more or less homogeneous and that most, if not all, incoming university students are
Digital Natives. Not only is it assumed that these students will have had broadly
universal experiences, but that they will also have a sophisticated knowledge and
understanding of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Such
generalisations risk overlooking a more complex mix of technology based skills,
knowledge and preferences among the student population.

An evidence-based understanding of students’ technological experiences is vital in

informing higher education policy and practice. A thorough understanding of
students’ technological experiences will have clear implications for areas such as
student access, equity, and transition. Institutional decision making associated with the
management and administration of information and communications technologies –
technological infrastructure support, resource investment, student and staff support –
would also benefit from evidence about students’ existing experiences with
technology. Finally, an investigation of students’ current technological experiences will
have implications for ways in which technology could potentially be harnessed in
pedagogically sound ways to improve teaching and learning.

Background to this study

Perhaps surprisingly, little empirical research has been published on students’ general
use of technology in the context of Australian higher education. We do know that
teenagers and young adults in Australia are high owners and users of technology
including computers, the Internet and mobile phones (NetRatings, 2005; Australian
110 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

Psychological Society, 2004). For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported
that in 2003, 99% of 12-14 year olds used a computer at home or at school and 88%
accessed the Internet. In the context of higher education, Krause, Hartley, James and
McInnes (2005) reported that first year students were spending 4.2 hours per week on
the web for study and research and only 3% said they never used the web for study
purposes. In a more recent survey of first–year engineering and business students,
Oliver and Goerke (2007) found that high proportions of students (over 90%) used
online resources for study purposes. They also noted a growth in students’ general use
of instant messaging, blogs and podcasting between 2005 and 2007. However, they
also found that the majority of students rarely or never used these technologies for
study.

More comprehensive research has been carried out in the American higher education
context. In 2002 the Pew Internet and American Life Project documented the high
proportion of U.S. students who were using the Internet for their studies (Jones &
Madden, 2002). This study was one of the first to document how high numbers of
college students used the internet to access information and used web-based email and
instant messaging to communicate both with staff and fellow students. More recently,
Kvavik (2005) surveyed 4,374 freshman and senior college students and found they
were frequent users of email, instant messaging, word processing and Internet
browsing and this use varied by students’ majors. High levels of use and skill did not
necessarily translate into preferences for increased use of technology in the classroom.
While 31% of students indicated that they would like ‘extensive’ use of technology in
the classroom, 26% of students said they would prefer classes with ‘limited’ or ‘no’
technology. Two factors that impacted on students’ preferences were previous positive
experiences with technology in the classroom and previous use and skill with
technology generally.

In a follow up to this study, Caruso and Kvavik (2005) present a broad and
comprehensive report of the technological experiences of over 18,000 university
students. It is difficult to do justice to the detailed findings of such a large study in a
paper such as this, but it is clear from their research that ICT permeates all aspects of
students’ lives. However, they also found that students are comfortable with a core set
of technologies but are less comfortable with specialised technologies. Replicating
Kvavik’s earlier findings (Kvavik, 2005), they again found that high levels of use and
skill did not necessarily translate into preferences for increased use of technology in
the classroom and that students prefer technology to a moderate degree and as a
supplement in courses.

Within this context, the aims of our study were straightforward. The first was to
empirically document the degree to which incoming first year students at a large
Australian metropolitan university access and use an array of technologies and
technology based tools. In addition to the more entrenched technologies that have
typically been the focus of this type of investigation (e.g. basic computer skills, email),
this study also focussed on how students use a range of more recent or emerging,
technology based tools (including social networking, blogs, wikis, RSS, VoIP, and
podcasting).

The second aim was to determine the degree to which students themselves report
wanting to use particular technologies to support their studies at university. Finally,
given an implicit assumption, often made in commentaries on the Digital Natives, that
because students are using particular technologies in their everyday lives they want to
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 111

use them in their studies, we sought to investigate this empirically with a small group
of emerging technologies. The final aim, therefore, was to determine whether the
extent to which students use technology in their everyday lives is related to their
preferences for their use at university.

Method
Sample
Data were collected from first year students who were commencing their studies at
The University of Melbourne in 2006. In total, 2120 students completed the
questionnaire used in this study which represented 27.2% of first year students at the
University. As we were interested in students who ascribe to the category of ‘Digital
Native’ based on age, analyses for this study were restricted to students born after
1980 (n = 1973; 25.3% of first year students).

Most of the students who participated in the study were born between 1985 and 1988
(accounting for 94.4% of the sample), meaning that they were aged between 17 and 21
when they completed the survey. Many more females than males responded to the
survey (62.4% females; 37.5% males), approximately a third of the sample were from a
non-English speaking background (34.9% NESB; 64.8% ESB) and about a quarter of the
sample were International students (23.4% international; 75.2% local students). Data
were collected from students in nine of the ten University faculties offering first year
courses. The only Faculty not independently represented – the Faculty of Music – was
nevertheless represented through a number of students undertaking combined
degrees.

Measure - questionnaire
A four page questionnaire, developed specifically for this study, asked students about
their access to, use of, skills with, and preferences for an array of established and
emerging technologies and technology based tools. The questionnaire comprised four
main sections: demographic information (11 items), access to hardware and the
Internet (16 items), use of and skills with technology based tools (Computer: 10 items;
Web: 22 items; Mobile phones: 7 items) and preferences for the use of technology
based tools in University studies (34 items). Only a subset of items are reported in this
paper due to space limitations.

Procedure
Data was collected during orientation week and the first week of Semester 1, 2006. Key
staff from faculties across the University (e.g. Assistant Deans, Information
Technology; Assistant Deans, Teaching and Learning; Faculty Managers) were invited
to participate in the study. Once in principle agreement had been established, contact
was made with staff who had responsibilities for teaching or administration in specific
disciplines (e.g. dentistry, chemistry, education, psychology, economics, law, etc).
Appropriate times to carry out data collection in student orientation or introductory
sessions were negotiated with each discipline contact. A member of the research team
and one or two research assistants attended a session and would firstly brief students
about the project and inform them that participation was voluntary and confidential.
Students who participated then completed the survey before returning it. Twenty such
survey sessions were conducted across the University.
112 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

Results
Students’ access to technology
Students were asked about their access to a range of technology hardware (computers,
mobile phones, memory sticks, digital cameras, etc) and their access to the Internet.
Students who indicated that they had access “exclusively for my own use” or “any
time I need it, though shared with other people” were combined into a single category
(“unrestricted”). Similarly, students who indicated they were “Not Sure” and
“Missing” data were combined into a single category. The results are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1: The percentage of students who have ‘unrestricted’,
‘limited’ or ‘no’ access to hardware and the Internet.
Unrestricted Limited No Not sure
Hardware
access access access /missing
Mobile phone 96.4 0.9 1.5 1.3
Desktop computer 89.5 4.9 3.7 1.9
Digital camera 76.0 8.9 13.7 1.4
Memory stick 72.5 7.1 17.3 3.1
MP3 player (iPod) 68.9 5.7 23.3 2.2
‘Laptop’ computer 63.2 10.0 24.0 2.8
Games console 47.4 13.2 36.6 2.8
Electronic organiser (PDA) 10.8 7.8 77.3 4.1
Broadband 72.9 5.7 18.1 3.3
Internet Dialup 44.1 6.1 44.0 5.7
Wireless 37.0 8.6 48.3 6.1

Table 1 shows that most commonly a moderate to high proportion of students have
unrestricted access to the hardware we asked about. As would be expected, a very
high proportion of students have unrestricted access to a desktop computer (89.5%).
Additional analyses showed that 70.5% of students have access to both a desktop and a
laptop computer while only 0.6 % of students (n=11) have access to neither. While
unrestricted access to mobile phones is almost universal (96.4%), the vast majority of
students indicated they do not have access to PDAs (77.3%). A relatively high
proportion of students have unrestricted access to portable memory sticks (72.5%) and
MP3 players (68.9%); however, these technologies are nowhere near ubiquitous with
around one-fifth of the student body having no access to them. Finally, while almost
half the sample had unrestricted access to a games console, over one third of
respondents (36.6%) had no access. With respect to Internet access, 72.9% of students
reported having unrestricted access to a broadband connection (Table 1). Fewer than
14% of students still relied on dialup Internet access and only 1.4% of students
reported having no Internet access at all.

Not surprisingly, Table 2 shows that most students are relying on computers for
creating digital documents and for general study purposes. Many students are familiar
with creating or editing digital images (only 16.0% have not done this in the last year)
and while students do not create multimedia presentations very frequently, they are
clearly familiar with this activity (only 11.1% have not done this in the last year). Half
the students in the sample had used a computer to create a web page, but perhaps
surprisingly, half had never done this. A large proportion of students are using their
computer to listen to music daily or weekly (84.0%) and while there are clearly student
‘gamers’, 38.5% of students have not used a games console in the last year.
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 113

Table 2: Percentages showing how often students use computer based technologies
Percentage used
Computer over not
daily weekly monthly
monthly used
Use a computer for writing documents (e.g. using 31.4 56.6 7.9 3.6 0.5
Word)
Use a computer to create graphics or manipulate 6.7 22.5 24.4 30.4 16.0
digital images (e.g. using Photoshop, Flash)
Use a computer for creating web pages (e.g. using 3.1 4.5 5.3 36.8 50.3
Dreamweaver, Frontpage)
Use a computer for creating multimedia 3.4 13.4 23.4 48.6 11.1
presentations (e.g. PowerPoint, Director)
Use a computer for creating editing audio and 3.7 6.8 7.8 29.0 52.7
video (e.g. iMovie)
Use a computer for general study, without 24.5 37.0 12.8 15.1 10.6
accessing the web
Use a computer to play digital music files (e.g. 57.7 26.3 3.7 4.4 7.9
iTunes) without accessing the Internet
Use a computer to play games, without accessing 19.9 26.5 14.1 20.1 19.5
the Internet / web
Use a games console to play games 9.4 16.2 11.9 23.9 38.5
Use a handheld computer (e.g. a PDA) as a 6.2 6.3 2.7 14.4 70.4
personal organiser (e.g. diary, address book)

Table 3 shows that the majority of students are relying heavily on their mobile phones
to call and text people, with 80% of students texting daily. The newer features of
mobile phones – their organising features and taking and sending pictures – are clearly
used frequently by a substantial subset of the sample, and are not used at all by a
similar but smaller subset. For example, 57.2% of students are using their mobile
phone to take pictures daily or weekly while 30.1% of students have not used their
phone for this activity. Some functions and features of mobile phones are yet to enjoy a
wide user base. For example, the vast majority of students have not used their mobile
to access web based information and services (67.8%) or to send and receive email
(75.8%).

Table 3: Percentages showing how often students

use mobile phone based technologies
Percentage used
Mobile over
daily weekly monthly not used
monthly
Use a mobile phone to call people 76.2 16.1 2.7 1.6 3.4
Use a mobile phone to text/ SMS people 79.5 13.2 1.8 1.3 4.1
Use a mobile phone to take digital photos or
movies 32.2 25.0 7.7 4.9 30.1
Use a mobile phone to send pictures or
movies to other people 18.0 14.9 11.2 8.7 47.2
Use a mobile phone as a personal organiser
(e.g. diary, address book) 29.8 21.6 6.1 6.1 36.5
Use a mobile phone to access information/
services on the web 8.1 9.5 4.9 9.6 67.8
Use a mobile phone to send or receive email 7.4 5.9 2.8 8.1 75.8

A number of instructive results can be seen with regards to incoming first year
students’ use of web based technologies and tools (see Table 4):
114 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

Table 4: Percentages showing how often students use web based technologies
Percentage used
Web over not
daily weekly monthly
monthly used
Use the web to access a school portal, ‘Course or 26.9 36.7 7.2 7.3 21.8
Learning Management System’
Use the web to look up reference information for 29.7 45.9 11.2 6.9 6.3
study purposes (e.g. online dictionaries)
Use the web to browse for general information 42.0 41.2 8.2 4.8 3.7
(e.g. news, holidaying, event timetables)
Use the Internet/web or a LAN to play networked 11.9 12.1 8.0 17.9 50.2
games
Use the web to listen to sound recordings (e.g. via 21.5 26.6 12.0 10.8 29.1
streaming audio or iTunes)
Use the web for other pastimes (i.e. for leisure 37.1 35.3 7.6 5.9 14.1
activities)
Use the web to buy or sell things (e.g. eBay, 5.5 9.2 12.5 24.3 48.5
Amazon, air tickets.)
Use the web for other services (e.g. banking, 8.0 20.8 14.2 16.6 40.4
paying bills)
Use the web to send or receive email (e.g. Hotmail, 66.4 27.2 2.5 1.3 2.7
Yahoo, Outlook)
Use the web for instant messaging/ chat (e.g. 54.7 25.1 4.5 5.3 10.4
MSN, Yahoo, ICQ)
Use the web to build and maintain a website 5.3 7.5 3.8 13.6 69.7
Use social networking software on the web (e.g. 11.1 12.7 5.0 8.2 62.9
MySpace, Trendster)
Use the web to download MP3 files (e.g. music, 26.7 31.7 11.7 6.9 23.0
videos, podcasts)
Use the web to upload and share MP3 files (e.g. 18.3 19.8 9.1 8.0 44.8
music, videos, podcasts)
Use the web to share photographs or other digital 11.9 18.8 9.6 10.1 49.5
material (e.g. using Blinklist, Flickr)
Use the web to make phone calls (e.g. VoIP using 8.7 10.5 4.9 9.7 66.3
Skype)
Use the web for web conferencing (e.g. using a 8.1 10.4 6.0 9.3 66.2
webcam)
Use the web to read RSS feeds (e.g. news feeds) 6.5 7.4 3.6 7.3 75.1
Use the web to read other people’s blogs or vlogs 15.6 22.1 10.5 10.5 41.4
Use the web to comment on other people’s blogs 11.1 15.8 7.5 9.5 56.1
or vlogs
Use the web to keep your own blog or vlog 10.2 11.0 5.5 8.2 65.1
Use the web to contribute to the development of a 3.3 5.2 2.3 7.6 81.6
wiki

• Many students (63.6%) indicated that they had accessed a learning management
system on a daily or weekly basis, but a considerable proportion (21.8%) had not
used a learning management system in the last year.
• The majority of students (over 85%) have used the web for study purposes, to
gather general information, as a pastime, to send and receive email, and for instant
messaging. While there is some variation in the frequency with which students
engage in these activities, the vast majority are using the web for these purposes
regularly (i.e. daily or weekly). Instant messaging is clearly a popular alternative to
email as a web based communication tool.
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 115

• While social networking software such as MySpace has recently grabbed headlines
in the media, only 23.8% of incoming students are engaging in social networking
daily or weekly; while 62.9% of students have never logged on.
• A total of 69.7% of students have not built and maintained a website in the last
year.
• Downloading MP3 music files and podcasts, and sharing these files is clearly an
activity enjoyed regularly by a large proportion of students (58.4% downloading
MP3s daily or weekly). Sharing is less common than downloading MP3s and there
is a significant proportion of students not engaging in this activity.
• With regards to the more novel communications technologies such as Voice Over
IP and web conferencing, a third of students have used them to some extent and
two-thirds have never used them.
• RSS feeds seem to be in the startup phase with three quarters of students having
not used them.
• A significant blog culture is evident among incoming first year students, given
34.9% indicated they have kept their own blog in the last year and more are reading
(58.6%) and commenting on (43.9%) other people’s blogs. A substantial proportion
of students (21.2%) indicated that they were contributing to their own blog on a
weekly basis.
• Wikis on the other hand, are less frequently used by students with 81.6% indicating
they had not contributed to this type of web publishing tool before.

The results presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4 show that many of the incoming first year
university students surveyed in this study are 'tech-savvy' and are incorporating a
range of traditional and emerging technologies in their daily lives. However, there are
clearly areas where the use of and familiarity with technology based tools is far from
universal or uniform among first year students. Many technology based tools (27 of
the 39) were not used by a substantial proportion of students (over 20%). Moreover, for
a number of activities, the proportion of students who have never used a particular
technology based tool outstripped those who had (e.g. create a website, keep a blog,
web conference, use social networking software, use RSS feeds, use a mobile phone to
access the web).

Using technology to assist with university studies

The final question in the survey presented students with a list of technology based
tools that might be used in their university studies. Students were asked to use a rating
scale (from ‘Strongly Agree’ to ‘Strongly Disagree’) to indicate the extent to which they
wanted to use these tools to assist with their university studies. Table 5 presents data
for a restricted set of items and the rating scales have been collapsed for ease of
interpretation.

Three general categories of responses can be seen for this question. The first includes
technologies and tools for which there is very strong support. That is, the vast majority
of students (over 75%) want to use them and very few students (under 5%) don’t want
to use them to assist with their university studies. The technologies and tools in this
category include using a computer to create digital documents and multimedia
presentations, accessing a learning portal, using the web to search for information,
using instant messaging and chat, using the web to access university based services,
and using SMS. The second category includes tools and technologies for which there is
strong but not overwhelming support (45-60% agree, 11-17% disagree) and includes
being able to download MP3s to assist with their studies (60.6%), use a mobile phone
116 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

as a personal organiser (59.8%), use a mobile phone to access web based information or
services (45.5%) and use a mobile phone to send or receive email (45.5%). The final
category of responses reflects technologies and tools for which there is no clear
preference either for or against their use (although they always follow a pattern where
‘neutral’ is greater than ‘agree’ which is greater than ‘disagree’). Technologies and
tools that fall into this category include creating a web page or web site, using a PDA,
social networking software, web conferencing, RSS feeds and blogs.

Table 5: Percentages of students who do or do not want to use

technology based tools to assist with their studies
To assist me with my University studies Percent
I want to be able to use… Agree Neutral Disagree
A computer for general study 93.8 5.2 1.0
A computer to create documents (e.g. using Word, Excel, PDFs) 94.6 4.4 1.0
A computer to create web pages (e.g. using Dreamweaver, Frontpage) 37.8 43.0 19.1
A computer to create multimedia presentations (e.g. PowerPoint, 75.4 19.9 4.7
Director)
A handheld computer (e.g. a PDA) as a personal organiser (e.g. 37.1 39.9 23.0
diary, address book)
The web to access a learning portal (e.g. a ‘Course’ or ‘Learning 80.9 14.9 4.1
Management System’)
The web to look up or search for information (e.g. online 93.4 5.2 1.4
dictionaries, Google)
The web for other services (e.g. enrolment, sign up for tutes, paying 83.9 12.0 4.0
fees)
The web for instant messaging/ chat (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, ICQ) 74.6 18.7 6.7
The web to build and maintain a website 33.0 43.5 23.5
Social networking software on the web (e.g. MySpace, Trendster) 31.8 44.5 23.7
The web to download MP3 files (e.g. podcasts, iTunes) 60.6 28.0 11.4
The web for web conferencing (e.g. using a webcam) 38.5 40.8 20.7
The web to read RSS feeds (e.g. news feeds) 32.6 47.4 20.0
The web to keep my own blog or vlog 32.2 42.4 25.4
A mobile phone to send or receive text messages/ SMSs 84.2 11.6 4.3
A mobile phone as a personal organiser (e.g. diary, address book) 59.8 30.1 10.1
A mobile phone to access web based information or services 45.5 39.0 15.5
A mobile phone to send or receive email 45.5 38.0 16.5

The final set of analyses considered the degree to which students’ attitudes towards
the use of emerging technology based tools in their studies was related to the
frequency with which they currently used these tools. Seven emerging technologies
based tools or activities were included in this analysis: keeping a blog, downloading
MP3s, texting on mobile phones, using instant messaging, using RSS feeds,
contributing to a wiki, and using social networking software on the web. A series of
chi–square analyses were used to determine the association between the degree to
which students used a technology based tool and the degree to which they endorsed
its use in their studies at University. Six of the seven chi–square tests showed a
significant pattern of association that is exemplified by the item Keeping a blog (χ2 (6) =
78.01; p<.001) (see Table 6). This table shows a strong relationship between the
frequency with which blogs are used and the desire for their use at university. This is
reflected in the over-representation of respondents in the ‘daily’ use by ‘agree’
category, and the ‘over monthly’ use and ‘disagree’ category (and conversely, an
under-representation in the ‘daily’/’disagree’ and ‘over monthly’/’agree’ categories).
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 117

This general pattern of results was also seen for instant messaging, social networking,
texting, RSS feeds and downloading MP3s.

Table 6: Observed counts and standardised residuals for a chi–square test of

association between Current use and Desire for use for the item Keeping a blog.
Desire for use
Keeping a blog Yes Neutral No
Obs (Std Res) Obs (Std Res) Obs (Std Res)
Current Daily 145 (3.9*) 28 (-4.0*) 7 (-2.4*)
use Weekly 114 (.0) 65 (.1) 17 (-.3)
Monthly 50 (-.7) 36 (.9) 9 (.1)
Over monthly 42 (-4.0*) 68 (3.7*) 23 (3.0*)
* p < .05

Discussion
This study of first year university students’ access to, and uses and perceptions of a
range of technologies has significant implications for the Australian higher education
sector. At a time of growing interest in the attributes of the so-called Digital Natives, it
is important for Australian universities to ensure that decision making about how to
enhance the learning experiences of incoming university students through the use of
technology is both evidence based and empirically informed.

The results of this study highlight the lack of homogeneity in the incoming first year
student population with regards to technology and a potential ‘digital divide’ between
students within a cohort of a single year level. While some students have embraced the
technologies and tools of the ‘Net Generation’, this is by no means the universal
student experience. When one moves beyond entrenched technologies and tools (e.g.
computers, mobile phones, email), the patterns of access to, use of and preference for a
range of other technologies show considerable variation. These findings run counter to
key assumptions underpinning Prensky’s (2001a) construct of the Digital Natives.
Given this, the widespread revision of curricula to accommodate the so-called Digital
Natives does not seem warranted and, moreover, it would be difficult to start
“Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives” (Prensky, 2001a; p. 4) when
they so obviously speak with a variety of tongues.

As suggested in the introduction to this paper, the level of technological diversity

revealed in this paper is starting to be acknowledged by educational technology
researchers. It is increasingly recognised that while the majority of incoming university
students possess a core set of technology based skills, beyond those a diverse range of
skills exist across the student population (see Caruso & Kvavik, 2005). Moreover, it is
recognised that core technology based skills do not necessarily translate into
sophisticated skills with other technologies or general information literacy. Kirkwood
and Price (2005) argue that “few students have high levels of competence across a
wide range of applications” and that “familiarity with the use of email does not imply
expertise in rigorous online debate and discussion” (p. 271). Similarly Lorenzo,
Oblinger and Dziubam (2006) state: “Today’s students are not just the traditional-age
Net Generation, nor have they all had the benefit of state-of-the-art, ubiquitous
technology. Higher education comprises a highly diverse and growing student body
with a wide variety of information literacy capabilities.” (p. 4). Clearly we cannot
118 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

assume that being a member of the ‘Net Generation’ is synonymous with knowing
how to employ technology based tools strategically to optimise learning experiences in
university settings.

Given this diversity within a single cohort of first year students, the challenge for
educators and university administrators is how to cater for the broad range in
students’ levels of access to, familiarity with, and preference for different technologies
and technology based tools. This study clearly provides sufficient evidence to negate
the ‘one size fits all’ approach to the integration of ICTs into university curricula.
While there are few easy answers in this area, the rather tired but true mantra that any
technological integration should be pedagogically driven still holds. Educators and
educational developers with expertise in both existing and emerging technologies
need to be proactive in this respect. Against the backdrop of this principle, educators
and administrators should look to the evidence about what technologies students have
access to and what their preferences are. Rather than making assumptions about what
students like – and are like – universities and their staff must look to the evidence to
inform both policy and practice.

An important consideration in this discussion is student equity. Take, for example, the
area of podcasting. The use of podcasts in education settings is rapidly gaining
acceptance (e.g. Lee, Chan & McLoughlin, 2006; Maag, 2006; McLoughlin, Lee & Chan,
2006) and while data from this study revealed a majority of students want to be able to
download MP3s to assist with their studies, almost 40% of students are uncertain
about or do not wish to use this form of technology in their learning. Moreover, 23% of
students have never used the web to download MP3 files and, at the time of the study,
14% relied on dialup Internet access which would have rendered large MP3 files
prohibitively slow to download. While a recent study by Lee, Chan and McLoughlin
(2006) suggested that many students preferred to listen to podcast learning material at
their computers, the often cited advantage of MP3s is that learners can access them
anytime, anywhere via portable MP3 players. However, one in five students in this
study reported no access to dedicated MP3 players (although many mobile phones
now have this capability). While these figures in no way suggest a moratorium on the
use of podcasting, they do indicate the need to provide appropriate support for
students.

Notwithstanding the overall message of diversity among students, there are a selection
of tools and technologies for which use and access border on being both universal and
uniform. Students are relying heavily on computers for study and for listening to
music; almost all have mobile phones for calling and texting others; they regularly use
the Internet for information gathering, email and instant messaging. In addition, the
vast majority want to use the web to search for information for their university studies,
to access university services and to use a portal as a gateway to learning material.
These results are supported by previous research (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005; Jones, 2002)
and when combined these findings show that today’s students are relying on
mainstream technologies (computers, mobile phones, and the Internet) for fast
communication, and convenient access to information and services. While we cannot
expect that all students will be adept with an array of new and emerging technologies,
they may increasingly bring to university general expectations about access,
convenience and connectedness (see Caruso and Kvavik’s (2005) ECAR framework).
This may have particular implications for the administrative services provided by
universities (both general student services and teaching and learning services).
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 119

Moreover, despite the diversity of technological experience in this sample of first year
students, the degree to which they are using of some emerging technologies and tools
does point to a number of promising opportunities for integrating innovative
technologies into university curricula. It cannot be ignored that substantial proportions
of incoming university students are using and reading blogs, are taking photos with
their mobile phones, are regularly using social networking software such as MySpace,
are communicating via web conferencing, and are sharing all sorts of digital files using
both their mobile phones and the web. The potential for harnessing these technologies
and activities for educational purposes is being actively discussed and effectively
realised (e.g. Downes, 2004; New Media Consortium, 2006, Instone, 2005; West,
Wright, Gabbitas & Graham, 2006; Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Bryant, 2006).

The final set of analyses in this study assessed the question of whether students who
use a particular technology in their everyday lives also want to use it in their studies.
The data reported in this paper indicate that for a range of emerging technologies
(blogs, instant messaging, texting, social networking, RSS feeds and downloading
MP3s) the answer seems to be ‘Yes’. However, limitations in the design of this
component of the investigation leave the observed association open to a variety of
explanations. For example, it may be that ‘early adopters’ who have keenly embraced
technologies for non–educational purposes may also be likely to perceive these same
technologies as having wider education value. Conversely, some students may not
have had enough experience with a technology to envisage how it could be usefully
applied. Also it is difficult to expect students to have the expertise to judge how to best
use emerging technologies for educational purposes.

An obvious difficulty associated with interpreting this finding is that we did not ask
students about how they thought technologies could be used in educational settings.
For example, the technology most widely accessed by this cohort is the mobile phone
(96% have one) and more than 90 percent use it to ‘text’ on a weekly basis. Perhaps not
surprisingly then, when asked to nominate technologies that might assist with their
studies, the majority of students (84%) agreed that they would like to send or receive
text messages via their mobile phone. While there was strong endorsement for using
text messaging as part of university studies, we did not canvass ways in which SMS
might be used in an educational setting, either by suggesting uses to students or
asking them to suggest uses. Students may have particular ideas about how their
mobile phones could be used to support their learning (e.g. texting marks or cancelled
classes), and these may well be different from University staff (e.g. texting pre–tutorial
questions).

More research is needed to determine the specific circumstances under which students
would like their ‘living technologies’ to be adapted as ‘learning technologies’. The
positive association between students’ use of technology and their preference for its
use at University leaves unanswered the question as to whether students’ everyday
skills with emerging technologies will correspond to skills associated with beneficial,
technology based learning. As noted by a number of authors (Kirkwood & Price, 2005;
Katz, 2005) the transfer from a social or entertainment technology (a living technology)
to a learning technology is neither automatic nor guaranteed. These issues point to
many unresolved issues that warrant further investigation.
120 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

Conclusions and future directions

For this ongoing research project the underlying issue – and the challenge – remains a
familiar one. As university educators we must be attuned to the ever changing and
often diverse characteristics of our student cohorts. Evidence of who our students are
must remain an important factor in informing how we use the array of technological
tools at our disposal to design rich and engaging learning experiences for all students.
There are numerous examples of how educators and educational developers have
done this well, with many different types of technology, over very many years.

The investigation reported in this paper would have benefited from more in depth,
qualitative investigation of both students’ and teachers’ perspectives on technology
from a broader range of universities which reflect the diversity of Australian higher
education. A larger investigation that has recently been supported by the Carrick
Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (see Kennedy, Krause, Gray,
Judd, Bennett, Maton, Dalgarno & Bishop, 2006; Kennedy, Dalgarno, Gray, Judd,
Waycott, Bennett, Maton, Krause, Bishop, Chang, & Churchward, 2007) will continue
this program of research and will consider staff and student perspectives across a
diverse range of Australian universities.

Acknowledgements
This research would not have been possible without the cooperation of staff and
students from The University of Melbourne. The research reported in this paper was
sponsored by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching, Learning and Equity) at The
University of Melbourne, Associate Professor Susan Elliott. We would particularly like
to acknowledge our discussions with Dr Barney Dalgarno and Dr Sue Bennett, which
usefully informed the preparation of this paper.

References
Australian Psychological Society (2004). Psychosocial aspects of mobile phone use among adolescents.
Australian Psychological Society.
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(2), 61-64.
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/SocialSoftwareinAcademia/39976

Caruso, J. B. & Kvavik, R. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology 2005:
Convenience, connection, control, and learning. EDUCAUSE.
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/ECARStudyofStudentsandInf/41159
Doherty, L. (2005). Where worlds collide and pupils leave teachers behind. Sydney Morning
Herald, October 1, 2005.
Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 14–26.
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/EducationalBlogging/40493
Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset. Changes in students and implications for
higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35(5), 15-24.
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0051.pdf
Gibbons, S. (2007). Redefining the roles of information professionals in higher education to
engage the Net generation. Keynote Paper presented at Educause Australasia 2007. [viewed
23 Jul 2007]. http://www.caudit.edu.au/educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Gibbons2.pdf
Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause 121

Gros, B. (2003). The impact of digital games in education. First Monday, 8(7).
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_7/xyzgros/index.html
Instone, L. (2005). Conversations beyond the classroom: Blogging in a professional development
course. In Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: Maintaining the momentum? Proceedings ASCILITE 2005.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/34_Instone.pdf
Jones, S. & Madden, M. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with
today's technology. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. [viewed 7 Apr
2007, verified 18 Jan 2008] http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf
Katz, R. (2005). Foreword: Growing up digital. In J. B. Caruso & R. Kvavik (Eds), ECAR study of
students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning.
EDUCAUSE. http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/ECARStudyofStudentsandInf/41159
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Dalgarno, B. & Bishop, A.
(2006). Questioning the Net generation: A collaborative project in Australian higher
education. In Who's learning? Whose technology? Proceedings ASCILITE 2006 (pp. 413-417).
Sydney: Sydney University Press.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p160.pdf
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause, K.,
Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward, A. (2007). The net generation are not big users of Web
2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings from a large cross-institutional study. In Providing
choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 517-525). Singapore:
Nanyang Technological University.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the 21st century: What do we know
about students' attitudes and experiences of ICT that will help us design courses? Studies in
Higher Education, 30(3), 257-274.
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R. & McInnes, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian
universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Department of Education, Science and
Training. Canberra, Australia. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/
publications_resources/profiles/first_year_experience.htm
Kvavik, R.B. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology.
In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 7.1-7.20). EDUCAUSE.
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/
Lee, M., Chan, A. & McLoughlin, C. (2006). Educational podcasting using the Charles Sturt
University flexible publishing platform. Proceedings E-Learn 2006.
http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~achan/papers/2006_POD_ELEARN.pdf
Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D. & Dziuban, C. (2006). How choice, co-creation, and culture are
changing what it means to be net savvy. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(1).
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/HowChoiceCoCreationandCul/40008
Maag, M. (2006). iPod, uPod? An emerging mobile learning tool in nursing education and
students' satisfaction. In Who's learning? Whose technology? Proceedings ASCILITE 2006 (pp.
483-492). Sydney: Sydney University Press.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p92.pdf
McLoughlin, C., Lee, M. J. W. & Chan, A. (2006). Using student generated podcasts to foster
reflection and metacognition. Australian Educational Computing, 21(2), 34-40. [verified 18 Jan
2008] http://www.acce.edu.au/JournalDB/GetIssuePDF.asp?IssueID=81
NetRatings (2005). Kidsonline@home. Internet use in Australian homes. NetRatings Australia Pty
Ltd. [verified 18 Jan 2008] http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aba/about/recruitment/kidsonline.pdf
New Media Consortium (2006). The Horizon Report 2006. NMC and EDUCAUSE.
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2006_Horizon_Report.pdf
122 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(1)

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students.
EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37-47. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0342.pdf

Oblinger, D. (2006). Listening to what we’re seeing. Keynote Paper presented at ALT–C 2006.
http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/Diana_Oblinger_20060905_25MB_88Mins.mp3 [viewed 23 July
2007].

Oliver, B. & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates' use and ownership of emerging
technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for
the Net Generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171-186.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/oliver.html

Prenksy, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prenksy, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II. Do they really think differently?
On the Horizon, 9(6). http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-
%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf

Prensky, M. (2007). How to teach with technology: Keeping both teachers and students
comfortable in an era of exponential change. Emerging Technologies for Learning, Vol. 2 (2007).
[viewed 23 July 2007]. http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/
emerging_technologies07_chapter4.pdf

Rodley, C. (2005). Meeting the demands of the Net Gen. UniNews, The University of Sydney, 28
October 2005. [verified 18 Jan 2008]. http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=744

West, R. E., Wright, G., Gabbitas, B. & Graham, C. R. (2006). Reflections from the introduction of
blogs and RSS feeds into a preservice instructional technology course. TechTrends, 50(4), 54-
60.

Williams, J. B. & Jacobs, J. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher
education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 232-247.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/williams.html

Gregor E. Kennedy, Terry S. Judd, Anna Churchward, Kathleen Gray

Biomedical Multimedia Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences
The University of Melbourne, 766 Elizabeth Street, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia

Kerri-Lee Krause, Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, 170
Kessels Road, Nathan QLD 4111, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Dr Gregor Kennedy, Biomedical Multimedia Unit
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences
The University of Melbourne, 766 Elizabeth Street
Parkville VIC 3010, Australia
Email: gek@unimelb.edu.au